Is abortion murder?

Abortion is a very divisive issue. It pushes people to extreme and decisive viewpoints. I'm still on the fence.

What do you think about abortion? Why do you think that why?

Is abortion murder? Why or why not?

I don't know. I'm kind of with you on the fence in terms of this issue. I mean, once the child is capable of sustaining life on its own, I think it's definitely murder to abort the child at that point. Before that, I don't know though. I don't really have much knowledge in this issue, so it's hard for me to say.

The currently standing supreme court decision on abortion seems to be somewhat fair. It's definitely extremely hard to decide when a fetus is a life or still just the precursor to a new life.
If we define the fetus to simply be the precursor to a new life, then would it also we be obliged to treat semen and eggs the same way?? I believe it is reasonable to say that anyone who considers abortion murder considers a fetus a life. Otherwise, those same people would likely be against men throwing away their semen after masturbation, or even more obscene, women menstruating.

Is abortion murder? Why or why not?

It all depends at which point during the pregnancy the abortion is done, and at which point someone draws the line between "human-life" and "pre-human-life". This has yet to be done conclusively by any authority, simply because of the religious/political/scientific controversy. And common people like me are not trained or knowledgeable in the field (biology/ethics etc.) to decisively determine it for ourselves. Nor if I were, surely my conclusion would be greatly disputed. Simply put, we cannot, for the time being, know.

honestly i have thought about the topic quite a bit and i don't believe i have a clear side. I do think abortion is murder and immoral, but i do think that there might be a instance in which it is ok or even necessary. The instance in mind is that of a woman impregnated by rape, or someone in danger of dying from childbirth, or both, these cases are where the line of the immorality of abortion blurs for me and i dont know what to think maybe someone can persuade me one way or another.

Before the question "is abortion murder?" can be addressed, it must first be established that a fetus is a human life and therefore able to be subjected to murder. You can not murder that which is not alive. Science has proven with overwhelming clarity that fetuses are vibrant living beings from the very second of conception. To say that it is only murder to terminate the life of a fetus once it has reached the point of being able to support its own existence independent of the womb or artificial devices casts into doubt the rights of children who are born full-term and still require life sustaining intervention. What about children who require life support for their entire life?

you know i have heard this point made a lot but i don't think that I agree to it, I think that murder is the taking of a life and I think you are still taking a life even if you may argue that life does not yet exist becasue it will exist. Firther, I think we could go beyond science and discuss the concept of a soul and when that becomes a part of a material being in which case a fetus might have a concsiousness from conception. In other words I don't think it's fair to say, they're not scientifically alive and therefore they are not persons and therefre they are not being killed, I think this argument is missing the part where you explain that they will never be person, you cannot explain it away becasue they will in fact be persons, so termination is a pre-life (or pre-body if you accept the existence of the soul) murder.

you know i have heard this point made a lot but i don't think that I agree to it, I think that murder is the taking of a life and I think you are still taking a life even if you may argue that life does not yet exist becasue it will exist. Firther, I think we could go beyond science and discuss the concept of a soul and when that becomes a part of a material being in which case a fetus might have a concsiousness from conception. In other words I don't think it's fair to say, they're not scientifically alive and therefore they are not persons and therefre they are not being killed, I think this argument is missing the part where you explain that they will never be person, you cannot explain it away becasue they will in fact be persons, so termination is a pre-life (or pre-body if you accept the existence of the soul) murder.

Valid arguments but not relevant to the topic of murder in the legal sense. Murder is defined as killing intentionally with premeditation, which does not in any way presume the existence of a soul. Murder is the killing of a person's physical body.

i wasn't aware we were talking about murder strictly in the legal sense of the term. If we are arguing only from a legal standpoint than it is hard to argue at all..from a legal standpoint there is the truth of what is considered ok and it doesn't esspecially matter about any philosophpical considerations that cannot be proven by empirical knowledge.

To say that it is only murder to terminate the life of a fetus once it has reached the point of being able to support its own existence independent of the womb or artificial devices casts into doubt the rights of children who are born full-term and still require life sustaining intervention. What about children who require life support for their entire life?

Children who are born full-term have nothing to do with the issue at hand. We're talking about unborn fetuses and whether or not it's murder for an abortion to take place. Aborting a child born full-term isn't abortion at all. Ugh...

Valid arguments but not relevant to the topic of murder in the legal sense. Murder is defined as killing intentionally with premeditation, which does not in any way presume the existence of a soul. Murder is the killing of a person's physical body

A valid arguement on your part, but not relevent to the topic at hand. This is an ETHICS discussion, not a LEGAL discussion. Thank you.

Children who are born full-term have nothing to do with the issue at hand. We're talking about unborn fetuses and whether or not it's murder for an abortion to take place. Aborting a child born full-term isn't abortion at all. Ugh...

Ugh....A fetus that is sufficiently developed is capable of surviving outside of the womb, even though it remains unborn. Premature babies are born every day which survive on their own but are young enough to have been aborted. Therefore, an aborted fetus often differs from a newborn baby only in the fact that it is living inside a womb instead of outside of one. If, hypothetically, an abortion was being performed and the "doctor" failed to tear the fetus's body apart fast enough and the infant was able to take a breath and begin to cry, would it still be abortion?

Valid arguments but not relevant to the topic of murder in the legal sense. Murder is defined as killing intentionally with premeditation, which does not in any way presume the existence of a soul. Murder is the killing of a person's physical body

A valid arguement on your part, but not relevent to the topic at hand. This is an ETHICS discussion, not a LEGAL discussion. Thank you.

No need to yell. I was referring to the question of whether or not abortion is murder. Murder is a legal term. Also, the study of law does not exist apart from the study of ethics, the two are inter-woven. Not to mention the fact that the person to whom I was addressing chose to rebut the opposite argument from the one I was outlining. Thank you.

i wasn't aware we were talking about murder strictly in the legal sense of the term. If we are arguing only from a legal standpoint than it is hard to argue at all..from a legal standpoint there is the truth of what is considered ok and it doesn't esspecially matter about any philosophpical considerations that cannot be proven by empirical knowledge.

I disagree. Law, ethics, and philosophy are all intimately connected. The Law, with a capital "L", may be absolute, but interpretation of law, at least in Western culture, is not absolute. If it were, there would be one universal code which once written would suffice for all time. This is not the case. Law, in practice, is dynamic. It changes according to people's changing sensibilities. The only societies with absolute, unchanging interpretation of law are theocracies.

Valid arguments but not relevant to the topic of murder in the legal sense. Murder is defined as killing intentionally with premeditation, which does not in any way presume the existence of a soul. Murder is the killing of a person's physical body

A valid arguement on your part, but not relevent to the topic at hand. This is an ETHICS discussion, not a LEGAL discussion. Thank you.

No need to yell. I was referring to the question of whether or not abortion is murder. Murder is a legal term. Also, the study of law does not exist apart from the study of ethics, the two are inter-woven. Not to mention the fact that the person to whom I was addressing chose to rebut the opposite argument from the one I was outlining. Thank you.

You're welcome